Pokies Biggest Wind Farm

Offshore wind power or offshore wind energy is the use of wind farms constructed in bodies of water, usually in the ocean on the continental shelfto harvest wind energy to generate electricity. Unlike the Pokies Biggest Wind Farm usage of the term "offshore" in the marine industry, offshore wind power includes inshore water areas such as lakes, fjords and sheltered coastal areas, utilizing traditional fixed-bottom wind turbine technologiesas well as deeper-water areas utilizing floating wind turbines.

At the end ofthe total worldwide offshore wind power capacity was 14, MW. All the largest offshore wind farms are currently in northern Europe, especially in the United Kingdom and Germany. The cost of offshore wind power has historically been higher than that of onshore wind generation, [3] but costs have been decreasing rapidly in recent years. Europe is the world leader in offshore wind power, with the first offshore wind farm Vindeby being installed in Denmark in Inthe US Energy Information Agency said "offshore wind power is the most expensive energy generating technology being considered for large scale deployment".

InDONG Energy claimed that offshore wind turbines were not yet competitive with fossil fuels, but estimated that they would be in 15 years. Until then, state funding and pension funds would be needed. At the end of3, turbines at 84 offshore wind farms across Pokies 2018 Vma Highlights European countries had been installed and grid-connected, making a total capacity of 11, MW.

To date a number of different solutions exist: Monopiles up to 11 m diameter at 2, tonnes can be made, but the largest so far are 1, tonnes which is below the 1, tonnes limit of some crane vessels. The other turbine components are much smaller. For locations with depths over about m, fixed foundations are uneconomical or technically unfeasible, and floating wind turbine anchored to the ocean floor are needed.

There are also several proposed developments in North America. In Januarya "Smart for the Start" regulatory approach was introduced, designed to expedite the siting process while incorporating strong environmental protections. India is looking at the potential of offshore wind power plants, with a MW demonstration plant being planned off the coast of Gujarat The advantage of locating wind turbines offshore is that the wind is much stronger off the coasts, and unlike wind over the continent, offshore breezes can be strong in the afternoon, matching the time when people are using the most electricity.

Offshore turbines can also be located close to the load centers along the coasts, such as large cities, eliminating the need for new long-distance transmission lines. Locating wind turbines offshore exposes the units to high humidity, salt water and salt water spray which negatively affect service life, cause corrosion and oxidation, increase maintenance and repair costs and in general make every aspect of installation and operation much more difficult, time-consuming, more dangerous and far more expensive than sites on Pokies Biggest Wind Farm.

The humidity and temperature is controlled by air conditioning the sealed nacelle. The cost of the turbine represents just one third to one half [12] of total costs in offshore projects today, the rest comes from infrastructure, maintenance, and oversight. Larger turbines with increased energy capture make more economic sense due to the extra infrastructure in offshore systems.

Play for a chance to Win one of these Jackpots!

Maintenance of offshore wind farms is much more expensive than for onshore installations. For example, a single technician in a pickup truck can quickly, easily and safely access turbines on land in almost any weather conditions, exit his or her vehicle and simply walk over to and into the turbine tower to gain access to the entire unit within minutes of arriving onsite.

Similar access to offshore turbines involves driving to a dock or pier, loading necessary Pokies Online Kundli Check and supplies into boat, a voyage to the wind turbine ssecuring the boat to the turbine structure, transferring tools and supplies to and from Pokies Biggest Wind Farm to turbine and turbine to boat and performing the rest of the steps in reverse order.

In addition to standard safety gear such as a hardhat, gloves and safety glasses, an offshore turbine technician may be required to wear a life vest, waterproof or water-resistant clothing and perhaps even a survival suit if working, sea and atmospheric conditions make rapid rescue in case of a fall into the water unlikely or impossible.

Typically at least two technicians skilled and trained in operating and handling large power boats at sea are required for tasks that one technician with a driver's license can perform on land in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost.

Graveyard: Banish this and any number of Cubic monsters in the grave, put Cubic Counters on the same number of your opponent's monsters.

Light the candle.

This article is intended to shed a light on the method of constructing alternative for the software program.

Power development company Invenergy LLC and General Electric Co on Wednesday announced plans to build the largest wind farm in the United States in Oklahoma, part of a $ billion project to provide electricity to million utility customers in the region. The 2-gigawatt Wind Catcher wind farm is Missing: pokies.

Other problems of offshore wind are related to the still limited number of installations. The offshore wind industry is not yet fully industrialized, as supply bottlenecks still exist as of A number of things are necessary in order to attain the necessary information for planning the commissioning of a offshore wind farm. The first information required is offshore wind characteristics.

Offshore wind resource characteristics span a range of spatial and temporal scales and field data on external conditions. The energy per sea area is roughly independent of turbine size. Other factors include marine growth, salinity, icing, and the geotechnical characteristics of the sea or lake bed. Existing hardware for measurements includes Light Detection and Ranging LIDARSonic Detection and Ranging SODARradarautonomous underwater vehicles AUVand remote satellite sensing, although these technologies should be assessed and refined, according to a report from a coalition of researchers from universities, industry, and government, supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.

Because of the many factors involved, one of the biggest difficulties with offshore wind farms is the ability to predict loads.

Analysis must account for the dynamic coupling between translational surge, sway, and heave and rotational roll, pitch, and yaw platform motions and turbine motions, as well as the dynamic characterization of mooring lines for floating systems. Foundations and substructures make up a large fraction of offshore wind systems, and must take into account every single one of these factors. Corrosion is also a serious problem and requires detailed design considerations. Some of the guidelines for designing offshore wind farms are IEC -3, [94] [95] [96] but in the US several other standards are necessary.

The industry puts pressure on the governments to improve the processes.

Wind power in the United Kingdom. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Turbines are much less accessible when offshore requiring the use of a service vessel or helicopter for routine access, and a jackup rig for heavy service such as gearbox replacementand thus reliability is more important than for an onshore turbine. A maintenance organization performs maintenance and repairs of the components, spending almost all its resources on the turbines.

The conventional way of inspecting the blades is for workers to rappel down the blade, taking a day per turbine. Some farms inspect the blades of three turbines per day by photographing them from the monopile through a mm lensavoiding to go up.

Because of their remote nature, prognosis and health-monitoring systems on offshore wind turbines will become much more necessary. They would enable better planning just-in-time maintenance, thereby reducing the operations and maintenance costs.

According to a report from a coalition of researchers from universities, industry, and government supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future[92] making field data from these turbines available would be invaluable in validating complex analysis codes used for turbine design.

Reducing this barrier would contribute to the education of engineers specializing in wind energy.

As the first offshore wind farms reach their end of life, a demolition industry develops to recycle them at a cost of DKK million per MW, to be guaranteed by the owner. While the offshore wind industry has grown dramatically over the last several decades, especially in Europe, there is still a great deal of uncertainty associated with how the construction and operation of these wind farms affect marine animals and the marine environment.

The Tethys database provides access to scientific literature and general information on the potential environmental effects of offshore wind energy. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Global cumulative offshore capacity MW. List of offshore wind farms and Lists of offshore wind farms by country. Environmental impact of wind power. BTM Consult22 November Retrieved 7 December Released December 16, Department of Energy DOE. Retrieved 14 December Archived from the original on 17 September Retrieved 17 September Archived from the original on 10 November Retrieved 10 November Global Wind Energy Council. Retrieved 14 April Retrieved 5 August Pokies Biggest Wind Farm Wind Energy Association.

Retrieved 27 February Seaturbines competitive in 15 years Archived November 16,at the Wayback Machine. Experts See Solid Offshore Growth".

Retrieved 19 December Retrieved 20 May Retrieved 22 July Retrieved 26 February Retrieved 2 June Retrieved 21 December Real and predicted prices for offshore wind power". Hansa International Maritime Journal.

Reaching the Limit and Beyond". Retrieved 19 April Bureau VeritasNovember Retrieved 14 September Retrieved 10 June Retrieved 4 September Retrieved 3 July Archived from the original on 19 June Retrieved 18 June Retrieved 6 Pokies Bonus Rpk Hipotonia Retrieved 31 May Archived from the original on 6 October Retrieved 27 August Walney 1 Offshore wind farm.

Pokies Big Win Soccer Main

Pokies Big Win Soccer Main

Pokie Tournamentasa Softball Field

Pokie Tournamentasa Softball Field

[edit]. Four offshore wind farms are in the Thames Estuary area: Kentish Flats, Gunfleet Sands, Thanet and London Array. The latter is the largest in the world as of See also: List of offshore wind farms and Lists of offshore wind farms by country Missing: pokies.:

Eight of the 10 largest wind farms in the world are operated in the US, with five situated in Texas alone. Just one offshore wind farm has made to the list, while all others are onshore. coinsluckyz.com profiles the world's 10 largest wind farms based on installed capacity. Previous. The MW Missing: pokies. A wind farm powering more than a million homes is to go ahead off the East Yorkshire coast. Four hundred is a nice big number for goats, and oddly enough, it's the same number of goats that allegedly "dropped dead" in New Zealand! In Wisconsin, too, a farmer claims he lost most of his cattle herd after turbines were installed. Anti-wind-farm websites are awash with these astonishing claims that.

Browse Wind turbine syndrome news, research and analysis from The Conversation.:

The largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere could be built in Rokewood if a proposal put forward by renewable energy company WestWind gets the all-clear from the Golden Plains Shire. IT may have been tough times for Central Queenslanders this year, but Fitzroy punters have poured a record amount into pokie machines. TasWind was to have been the largest wind farm project in the southern hemisphere. The project was forecast to pump more than $7 million a year into the King Island economy and provide an estimated $ million annual revenue boost to the state's coffers. Construction was to have created jobs and.

:

:

Game makes you're Pokies Biggest Wind Farm difference that the

The firm said it expected to create about 2, jobs during construction and up to additional jobs, both directly and indirectly, when it was running. Bird welfare charity the RSPB said it had concerns over the development due to the "high collision risk for seabirds using the area". CfDs was criticised in a report by the National Audit Office which claimed too much money was awarded to the project "without price competition" and is concerned this could ultimately increase costs.

The site will cover an area the size of more than 58, football pitches and will be located 75 miles km off the coast. Each of the turbines will be ft m high. A cable connecting the site to the National Grid will come ashore at a site in Killingholme in North Lincolnshire. Dong Energy has already built the Westermost Rough wind farm which consist of 35 turbines located 16 miles 25km off the Holderness coast.

Continue Change settings Find out more. England selected Local News Regions Humberside selected. Image copyright Dong Energy Image caption The wind farm is expected to start producing electricity by A wind farm powering more than a million homes is to be built off the East Yorkshire coast. It is located in the outer Thames Estuary more than 20km off the coasts of Kent and Essex. London Array was officially opened in July On and the Abu Dhabi-based Masdar.

The wind farm comprises of Siemens 3. The rotor diameter of each turbine is m. The wind farm is spread across 2, acres of open field 17km west of the Black Sea shore. CEZ Group owns and operates the facility. Fantanele-Cogealac is currently the largest onshore wind farm in Europe. The first turbine of the wind farm was installed in June and the last turbine was grid connected in November The GE 2.

The turbines have an average rotor diameter of 99m. The wind farm was built in two phases and has a total installed capacity of Construction of the wind farm spreading across an area of 50, acres started in The second phase became operational in The wind farm has the capacity to meet the power needs of , average households. The wind power facility comprises of Vestas V The power output is fed to the PJM grid network.

The onshore wind farm is jointly owned by Duke Energy and Infigen Energy. The wind farm was built in five phases. The first phase began commercial operations in The remaining four phases were commissioned by Buffalo Gap Wind Farm was built in three phases.

The first phase was completed in My BS detector fired at that on Marko. My "understanding" has been that a well-sited wind turbine repays its embodied energy in 3 to 4 months.

Wind turbines would not provide an economic return if they couldn't provide a considerable net energy return over their lifetimes, so you need to be called on that piece of mythology. Birds have been flying for years and curiously enough have become quite good at it. They even fly at night and manage to miss things. In WW1 before interruptor gear was developed fighter pilots were prepared to risk firing thru their propellor. If a michine gun firing say rounds per minute can miss a propellor rotating at say rpm often enough to make it w orthwhile risk then I'm guessing that birds are unlikley to hit turbine blades that often even if they were , shall we say..

The fact is turbines don't kill birds in any more often than say people getting killed by lightning. The maths are against plus their instincts and even if it did happen I imagine that natural selection will sort things out anyway.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't like or dislike them but have often wondered why they aren't painted grey which would make them as near as dammit invisible. To the contrary a wind turbine is elegant, attractive, quiet and non polluting as it smoothly goes about its business. Really nothing wrong with them at all.

They should start subsidizing the fossil fuel industries and see how competitive wind power is then. Full of hot air if you ask me. Compare like for like libpotato, include all the infrastructure and operational costs you know, coal mines, transportation of fuel, waste disposal, the health effects of air pollution etc and you will find that it wind and solar is more than competitive.

Cost is one reason why Ethiopia is developing wind and solar big time in lieu of fossil fuel power stations, the other is that they care about the environment and don't have an entrenched fossil fuel based power industry to contend with. Of course they don't have the base load requirements we have either. What exactly is your agenda? But you wouldn't know. Sorry my phone corrects to American spelling. Sadly I am a productive member of society and can't sit on the computer pointing out spelling mistakes all day.

Still keep up the good work and spout the greenie myths until people start believing them. The fossil fuel industry is already heavily subsidised. From federal tax breaks alone the fossil fuel industries get over 12 billion dollars annually this is from a freedom of information release. That doesn't include the billions spent on infrastructure, the billions on pre-commercial exploration and research undertaken by agencies such as geosciences Australia and it doesn't include the billions given by State Governments.

The estimates of subsidies for the renewable sector are that they are at about a tenth of that given to the fossil fuel sector. And that is rapidly declining under the current fossilised government. SUbsidies are legitimate policy tools - but not for established and filthy industries dare I mention climate change.

If you included all the externalised costs of coal for instance not only climate change but health, loss of habitat , you could add many many more billions to the bill - what you and I are paying for.

I, for one, want my taxes going to renewables. Absolute and total rubbish. These tax concessions are available to all industries and the alleged IMF study included such things as reductions to pensioners as a subsidy to production absolute nonsense!

Actually, the fossil fuel industry is already subsidize and has been for decades. The coal mining and transportation industries get a rebate of the diesel fuel excise, for example. Incidentally, how do you suppose Gina Reinhardt is so rich? It is, in part, because your hard-earned goes towards her use of diesel fuel for mining.

How do you feel about that? Skeptic, not sure how you missed the fact that until now Gina Reinhart's companies have been involved in prospecting, not mining. They then sell mining rights to othercompanies. Not much in the way of diesel rebates for her. Speaking of the diesel rebate, surely you're aware this rebate is only for off-road use same goes for farmers , and is reasonable considering that the point of the excise is to maintain public roads used by vehicles.

With almost every form of renewable energy the problem is intermittency i. Wind is particularly bad, as the power in wind is related to the cube of the wind speed i. Wild cats kill more birds than anyone or anything. If you have any idea of good design you would admit that wind turbines are actually rather beautiful I don't know what you are talking about with your constant reverences about tax-payers dollars.

Tax dollars belong to the government; they decide. Make sure you vote in sensible people So, because cats kill birds, it's okay for wind turbines to do the same? Strange logic there, Helvi. No, not solely because of bird deaths. Although I think that's a pretty good argument alone. I also pointed out their rapacious appetite for taxpayer dollars, and their blighting of landscapes.

But the point of the bird deaths even more serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the Church of Gaia - if any other industry did the same, the green movement would be piling auto-da-fe on fatwa, and flagellating themselves at the gates in droves. Wind turbines cause very few bird deaths, but the beat-up about it is huge.

That wind turbines slaughter thousands of birds has become an urban myth which is very hard to correct at this stage. Don't want to kill birds? Don't drive a car. Certainly don't own a cat. Don't have windows for birds to fly into. And don't permit clearing of land. All these things kill wildly more birds than wind turbines.

Better still, plant native species wherever you can find room and trap and euthanize Indian Mynah's. A quick look on google scholar puts this issue into perspective: The wild-eyed claims were made by people like yourself - opposed to wind turbines, no matter what.

Your assertion that wind farms 'chew through wild life' are demonstrably wrong. There are several other causes for large scale demise of native wildlife, but don't take my word for it. For example, if you would care to do a little research you would find that domestic cats kill many thousands of birds, small reptiles and mammals each year.

They even kill more native critters per head than feral cats, which seems counter intuitive but I assure you it is true. But try banning ownership of cats and see how far you get. I am not personally enamored of cats myself, but I would never prevent someone from owning one.

It's just not my place to do so. Your opinion that wind turbines are ugly is only that - YOUR opinion. Odd that you should call yourself 'skeptic' when you blithely accept some extremely tendentious 'studies' - presumably because they're congenial to your prejudices you don't like cats. Yes, their ugliness is merely a matter of opinion, but their propensity for killing birds and hoovering taxpayer dollars is not. I don't know anything about wind farms killing birds, I do know however that I did see a dead bird on the side of the road near a wind farm recently, so perhaps that is all the proof you need.

I also know that wind farms are killing many of my pigs though, especially the ones that fly too close. This anti nonsense will be around for a while. It's not based on reason or evidence, just political ideology and opportunism. Typical rant by EVAN Don't you realise that there is a big difference between residential areas and rural zones? Get real, don't make people laugh with your stupidity. Oops, I am laughing right now! Actually another interesting thing I've noticed is that it never seems to be the property with the windfarms on it who get rent complaining.

Instead, it seems to be the one nearby often, next door to that instead does not get rent that seems to suddenly have issues. The phenomena you describe has a name. Dont see whats funny. Seems a totallly resonable position to take. I dont see anyone building windfarms on their property because they like the look of them. They put up with them because they are being paid.

Extreme environmentalists wrote the guide book on how to launch an effective public scare campaign using ridiculous exaggerations and outright lies Could not have said it better myself. It is quite funny to see the boot on the other foot. How many Green lies have been told over the years now?

I do notice that the amount of birds that get killed by these wind towers does not really get a mention very often? Every truck on the road kills more birds than a wind turbine - is that a sound reason to ban them? What about chicken farmers? I'm sure they kill more birds than all other causes combined. Anti-windfarm campaigners base their opinions on mumbojumbo and voohdoo, just like AGW deniers and Liberal voters. So i think those two examples are completely different: My observations have been that thousands of birds are killed by these farms all over the world.

In which peer-reviewed journal? You haven't published and you don't know and you haven't read the literature. How many birds are killed in oil spills? During construction of fossil fuel and nuclear power stations? By a myriad of pollution? Oh, of course, you don't know. Firstly, you haven't observed windfarms all over the world - unless you have Richard Branson's resources on hand. Now, kindly stick to the facts if you can.

A few dead birds may well be better than tonnes of coal power pollution that would otherwise be emmited. I saw a dead bird on top of a train recently. See, for instance, several articles in journals like Scientific American attacking Greenpeace for being anti-science. I think prison was referring to "environmental science and scientists", not tree huggers who think magnetised water can cure cancer.

Some people call themselves environmentalists and use dodgy science, doesn't mean all are dodgy and sound policy should be based on good science in any sphere of human activity including wind farms. Yes GreenPeace could fairly be criticized at anti-science.

I myself am highly critical of them, and I certain consider myself an environmentalist and scientist. However, Prison stated "generally environmentalists base action on science To which you responded "Bollocks". You might note that listing one environmental group that is, arguably anti-science.

You do understand that don't you? I don't think this article is about Greenpeace - isn't it about wind turbine syndrome? Are you implying that if we all agree that Greenpeace has some extreme loonies in it, then consequently "wind turbine syndrome" must be real? I wouldn't even conclude that if Greenpeace has some loonies in it, that therefore environmentalism is bollocks. That's like saying that if one of our political parties has some loonies then? Well, Nemo, I've just been on the Sci Am website and couldn't find any such stories.

Please tell me which issues they were in. You mustn't have looked too hard - but then, like all religious fundamentalists, greens tend to develop a curious blind spot when it comes to their sacred dogmas. September 6, issue, for one. Funny how objective science gets blown away by emotive overload on this issue. I can understand people saying they don't like the look of these turbines but so many of them then go on to embellish their opinion with emotional garbage.

They actually only make fools of themselves They don't have one iota of scientific evidence on their side but that doesn't stop them generating their own and believing it with religious fervour. They have proven to be a fanciful fairy tale of free wind power.

In fact they are totally in-efficient, require buckets of money to support and litter the skyline like some tribute to stupidity. Their days are numbered as green slush funds dry up and real business will not invest their own doh without a top up from taxpayers. The financial health of nations suffers with these steampunk monuments to pyschoscience. Bin them with wave generators and other professor ratbaggy ideas. Mick, take a look at this OECD report http: Such reports also include reductions to pensioners as a subsidg to the industry when in fact they are a loss, if your revenue is decreased then that is hardly a subsidy.

But as I have said before it is difficult to reason with someone who thinks you can be killed by a gun which no longer exists! I'm not sure of your reasoning there, John. For instance, close to a quarter of a million people were killed by WMD that no longer existed. My point is that Simon Chapman, as well as Andrew Leigh, have published articles claiming the gun buyback of 96 has resulted in a gradual decline in deaths involving a firearm.

There are now more firearms and owners than before Certain classes of firearms were banned and seized over a very short period. So it would appear that some which were seized and destroyed in 96 continued to kill in 97 and 98 but ceased killing in 99?

An obvious nonsense but one Simon Chapman seems wedded to! Simon Chapman, in common with Andre Leigh, has published a number of articles crediting the 96 Gun Buyback with causing a gradual reduction in Australian deaths which involve a firearm. The number of firearms and owners in Australia has increased since 96 as can easily be checked Therefore the chance of being killed by a firearm, according to Chapman is inversely proportional to the length of time since it was destroyed.

Something destroyed in 96 does not go on killing in any subsequent year but at a lower rate. If you can explain otherwise I would be interested to hear it! Let others experiment with these useless windmills, we should have the cheapest power on the planet. Let others drink the green soup we should be attracting factories here for our future prosperity and employment of our youth. Instead we buy chinese windmills - we are going backwards pursing this leftist idealogy. I am just a simple taxpaying australian who didnt do an arts degree.

Mick, Have you been asleep for the last decade? You didn't mention that fact that all the rocks we have in abundance, that we can burn to generate electricity, all release large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere when burnt. Google climate change, or greenhouse gas, and find some summary from a reputable information source. Seriously, at least read up on this stuff, it's got nothing to do with "lefist idealogy", it's just the way the physical world actually works, as best we can make out.

Don't take my word for it. Read up on it! But alas we seem destined to windmill powered elitist coffee shops and a stupid service industry to drive our economy and these are the new jobs of the future. But you are right maybe we should all drink and enjoy the soup concocted in the academic group think places like CSIRO who scab off taxpayers money to exist and follow the flavour of the day.

If they were that good they would be inventing hover boards and flux capacitors. They have no imagination and ponder over computer models of weather patterns. What are you talking about? Instead we buy chinese windmills" I agree.

We should be building and exporting wind turbines and other high-value technologies that have a very very long-term future. And we should not be digging up rocks - a lazy, low-skilled, no value-add, backward-looking, short-term, polluting, bird-killing activity that will become unviable as carbon is inevitably priced globally.

But, hey, if you want to live in the 19th century, be my guest. Carbon is priced globally. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. We don't need to ruin our econmy in the name of some pie-in-the-sky ideology that sees plant food as a pollutant. Meanwhile, Albany has done quite ok while leaning on wind for three quarters of its energy supply. As for the financial health of the nation, have you not been following along?

The summary of the last two weeks provides three reasons for us doing badly: One We are not kicking the minimum wage earner in the guts enough.

Two We should be expecting the average worker to die at his desk. Retiring at 65 is clearly too young. Three We are not abusing the elderly enough. Cat food is too luxurious. We need them to sell their homes as well. Give it 50 years and the minimum wage earner will not make it to 70 and they certainly will not own a home so we will need someone else to pick on. Maybe retarded children will become fair game. All those things of which you speak are the reccomendations of the left-wing, ALP-supporting loonies at the Grattan Institute.

Albany has done quite well on the fossil fuel energy used to make their wind generators. When they try to make wind and solar generators using wind and solar alone, the results will be very different. Deary me, mick, can't help but have a good laugh at your writing! You sound like one of the Tea party lunatics in the US congress. Here's a good quote from Joe Barton from Texas, of course: Its just that like so many people in this debate, he does not know how to quantify.

Ah yes, the Tea Party lunatics, those peole who dared to say that the Government was taking too much in tax from cisitzens and not spending the money to good effect. That is such exteremism isn't it? People like you, the real extremist loonies, always make me laugh when you attack ordinary middle-of-the-road conservatism as extreme. Keep it up, by ye words shall we know ye.

And don't let the fact that Joe is right scientifically get in your way. The fact is that he actually went on to say that he knew that this would only become a problem if widfarms reached a critical mass.

As fossil fuels continue to deplete and the true costs of these inefficient devices is realized, it won't be so funny. Wow,'' i didnt know you could time travel from the middle ages to the 21st century,how did you do it?

Don't count on the hysteria dying down. Mobile phones have been about selling widgets to the masses. The vested interest has been all about getting people to upgrade every 2 years. There is no vested interest in people not having mobile phones. Phone manufacturers, carriers, etc all make a buck out of people having phones.

There isn't a competing industry making money out of similar communication delivery - you can't argue the postal service here as competition. Hysteria about wind farms has the backing of some very large vested interests who will lose out big time if wind farms are ever widely adopted.

You know it's strange. Some energy companies are OK with producing energy, however it is generated. Some are just too set in their ways. I bet they are the same companies that demand employees adapt or get "involuntarily entrepreneured". As for the goats in NZ, clearly they aren't as robust as sheep when it comes to the amorous advances of the local population.

I don't think there is any expiry date on being able to laugh at silly comments. Every time the daylight savings debate rears its head someone will mention the "fading curtains" comment. News agencies had scoured across Queensland searching for someone to give a stupid enough quote I must admit, that I was thinking, that those poor goats were possibly the victims of probing by aliens, but maybe you're right.

Maybe they were victims of a different type of probing. Now where's my tinfoil hat? Perhaps Professor Chapman could provide us with some information on wildlife deaths due to wind turbines where the cause is not open to doubt.

That is bird and bat deaths due to blade strike. In a U. Fish and Wildlife Service scientist estimated that wind turbines kill , birds per year in the U. A study by University of Colorado biologist Mark Hayes produced an estimate that wind turbines killed more than , bats in the U.

I notice Prof Chapman doesn't mention these kinds of incidents. Now that I've drawn his attention to them, will he be adding these studies to his list? I'd be curious to know how many birds are killed by domestic cats. I'd be willing to bet the figure would dwarf any concern about turbines, but nothing will be done about it. I like cats, but they are killing machines even when they're well fed. Fossil fuel energy production is estimated to kill twenty times more birds than wind turbines.

And yes, then there are people and cats. There are about 10 billion birds in the USA in the spring time, and about 20 billion in the fall. The latest study has a median avian mortality of , Doing a wee bit of math, that's one in 86, birds in the USA killed by wind turbines annually.

Insignificant, in other words. In the meantime, lit windows and cats kill up to a billion birds annually in the USA according to studies. Odd how people aren't up in arms about that? Wind farms are the best source of utility-scale energy for wildlife including birds: How would these figures compare to bird deaths caused by power lines, and the cost of fires caused by power lines?

Are there figures for the amount of wildlife poisoned by the output of coal-fired power stations, let alone the human cost of living close to one of these monsters? Nearly everything we do to create our own comfort has a cost and statistics can be used to prove many things.

Generally there seems to be a balance between what is acceptable collateral damage and what we are not prepared to do without. However there does seem to be a direct link between power price hikes and alternative power generation methods, as the power companies try to claw back their drop in income from those of us who don't have access to a cheaper and greener alternative.

But thats a whole other argument and based rather more on fact than hypochondria and hysteria. You still have power lines with or without wind turbines. The electricity needs to be distributed somehow. Wouldn't the noise of the blades cause the counters to lose count? The wet has started here in the N. All will hope no radio active water will leak out of the containment ponds at the ranger mine, again. I wounder if anyone has ever estimated the numbers of animals that have been killed due to the many problems with the fossil fuel industry?

Oil tanker accidents over 20 years ago are still killing things today. There are specific mortality counting approaches that are adopted by industry. Wildlife biologists are engaged to visit wind farms on specific schedules to conduct sweeps of the area in specific patterns.

They pick up carcasses, categorize them and record the counts. Based on reasonably well-validated metrics, they extrapolate to total bird kill. But it starts from empirical data of actual birds counted, and the metrics are based on studies which allow reasonably accurate extrapolation. Actually there is next to no green energy and our power prices have risen as much or more than the rest of australia.

Interesting how Tasmania can be almost entirely green energy and have cheaper power than those states who burn coal. I know theirs is hydro power but surely we could implement wind farms without impacting costs significantly?

Doesn't this conflict with your conclusions? I know alternate energy is the enemy of those in the coal industry who have been gouging us to make as much money as possible before they are run out of town - maybe this is you? Its not so simple to label people now. I have an environmental conscience and support solar, wind, hydro and nuclear for the complete replacement of coal burning as soon as possible.

Maybe we are being forced in a more progressive direction where we chose options based on minimising environmental impact with NEW commercial benefits. Gas power for example is fine as long as we avoid CSG in my opinion.

Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and even nuclear power all will generate future business opportunities while tackling pollution win-win! I guess all of us have to drop the labels because people who value the environment will soon be working with wealthy conservatives to make these projects happen. Assuming you are Australian, you can blame wind farms for keeping your electricity prices from rising further, actually. Due to the merit order effect, wholesale electricity prices are lower due to wind energy, reducing the overall cost of electricity quite a bit.

However, other factors completely unrelated to wind energy such as profit-taking by the utilities, gold-plating and double-dipping caused real increases. Blaming wind energy may make you feel good, but it doesn't mean you are right. Mike, if what you say is true, lets abolish all the green mandates, because, according to you, as wind is so much cheaper than everything else, people will choose wind without them.

But we know that's not the case. If we're going to make it a level playing field so the best technologies can compete, then let's also abolish the massive subsidies the fossil fuel industry enjoys. A lower wholesale price is a poor comparison when looking at intermittent unusable and unwanted energy, versus the more reliable baseload forms of energy. You are spot on NomDePlume. Wind farms have caused power prices to increase. Increases in population is jacking up energy prices and is offsetting energy produced by inefficient wind and solar generators.

So that's why my hair is falling out and my eyesight failing. It's not because I'm pushing 50 but from wandering around Wattle Point watching the sheep cluster in the shadows cast from the towers to get out of the sun. You just need to follow the money. Anti wind is funded by coal As an ex-Dutchman, I can still remember my mother telling me, that during a wild storm, they ditched their bikes in the lee of the howling wind underneath a windmill.

While the windmill blades where whirling around they had a romantic moment. This is how I was conceived. Soon after my Dad was taken. Rotterdam had already been bombed. Don't ever fear windmills, they have been around for hundreds of years. They also look so much better than miles of roads and telegraph poles with their knitted wiring. Old wildmills would not be whirling around in a wild storm, they would break. The windmill keeper would furl the sails before the storm started.

Personally I don't know if it's true or not yes, the sails would be hauled in, but unless you 'feather' the blades to have them point end-on to the wind I reckon they still might turn in a strong wind - I guess a Dutchman would know , but seeing this article is all about bs associated with turning blades I fear you may just be picking the wrong story to have a crack at.

Might be a BS story but who cares, it's quaint, nice one Gerard, hang on to it as family history or family myth because it's part of your story. And so much better than those metal power towers I grew up with - they streaked hideously across the landscape and buzzed ominously when one played beneath them. I like the look of wind turbines and saw many of them last year in UK and Europe. I dare say if many hundreds of them were close to my house I'd find it rather noisy, but that doesn't seem to worry the farmers that host them.

Unless of course you do what other nations do and bury the power cables. Most people from Europe are stunned to see such an archaic system of power lines when they come to Australia. If the Earth is flat then anything is possible. I have just returned from 4 weeks in Portugal, a country with many wind turbines rotating slowly and majestically on ridges above green peaceful farms generating non polluting electricity.

While traveling around this environmentally advanced, as far as wind turbines are concerned anyway, country I failed to see any dancing cows or jumping sheep. Nor were there piles of suicidal birds surrounding those turbines.

However standing on hilltops looking at the Atlantic ocean it was possible to discern a slight curve of the horizon, thus indicating that the earth is in all probability not flat.

This looks pretty much an equivalent but in reversed political colour of the AGW debate. So, I have one question and one question only that is common to both debates: What's the scientific evidence to support any claim?

Incidentally, I would have loved Simon Chapman to have added some links to serious research on this matter. I don't mind to laugh and throw satire at ridiculous claims Alpo, your wish, my command. Hi Simon, Many thanks, excellent compilation! Before reading your reply I also posted a comment on a recent review in the form of a report by von Hunerbein et al. John, the peer review process is not perfect, but other processes are even less perfect. We can only choose the best of the options we have.

If you have a better one, please do go ahead and propose it. I repeat my statement can anyone show how you get killed by a gun which no longer exists? It is interesting how media watch lampooned a study on the Murray estuary because it had been reviewed by someone known to the author, I would have thought that was normal in a specialised field. But of course if it is politically correct the ABC does not make such a criticism. You ask for a better way, plain common sense backed up by real facts would be a starting point.

The ailment, so called, does seem to be somewhat distance dependant. In all of the cheaply-scored hilarity we garner from these lunatics, it's sobering to think what a poor quality of life they must have. If being reduced to dribbling incontinence comes this easy from exposure to things rotating, it must be hell on hot days when they can't turn on their ceiling fans, run the air-con in their cars can't even start their cars it would seem - the radiator fan would send them doolally , and grew up as kids not knowing the joys of Ferris wheels and merry-go-rounds.

Personally I'm staggered that the Earth's rotation around the Sun AND around its own axis - God, what a nightmare hasn't killed them off already. These poor folk are living in hell, and all we can do is laugh long and hard at them.

One really has to wonder if the anti wind farm brigade are simply going down the well worn path of denial. Their words and actions clearly mirror the already tested models of people against No JC, the controversy reads: Do you support that statement? It is a bit hard to know what John is talking about here. Sorry; it is impossible to know anything that John is talking about here.

John, please tell us; will global warming benefit or harm wind power generation. Please let me know if I use any words which are too long. Chapman points out the tendency for people to blame wind turbines for any malady real or imagined, I point out an identical tendency for people to do the same for global warming sic especially when there hasn't been any for fifteen years.

I hope that clears that up. And from his profoundly ignorant comment, clearly John does not work in the field of climate science. I always find it difficult to reason with a man who thinks your chances of being killed by a firearm is inversely proportional to the length of time since it was destroyed whereas I would have thought that once destroyed it could not kill anyone but the real issue with wind farms is that they are expensive and in no way inhibit global warming nor improve energy efficiency.

Because when the wind don't blow there ain't no electricity so it has to be produced by something else.